A Peace Plan To End the Flash-On-iPhone Fight 495
GMGruman writes "As the pro- and anti-Flash camps have hardened their positions, the editors at InfoWorld have come up with a four-point peace plan that would allow Flash on the iPhone while addressing Apple's very real concerns over performance, stability, and security. Readers can vote and comment on the peace plan, which InfoWorld hopes will result in serious talks between Apple and Adobe."
Come on guys... (Score:2)
You could outline that plan in the summary. How many people here will RTFA?
Re:Come on guys... (Score:5, Informative)
Here:
1. Create a Flash video player plug-in.
2. Put the core Flash technologies into the standards bodies.
3. Create an iPhone-certified SWF exporter for Creative Suite.
4. Explore a Flash app certification process.
Re:Come on guys... (Score:5, Informative)
Say Apple releases new API's you want to use in your app. Here's what you do as an Xcode coder:
1) Download the new Xcode with new API's
2) Modify your code to use new API's
3) Recompile
4) Submit to store
Here's what you do if you want to use new capabilities from your Flash app:
1) Wait for Adobe to download new XCode
2) Wait for Adobe to use new hooks in code and expose them to you in new functions.
3) Buy new version of Flash development.
4) Modify your code
5) Export as iPhone app
6) Submit to store
I would rather have to code in Objective-C than wait for and have to buy a new version of Adobe Flash, just to get the capabilities made available by Apple's Xcode.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you don't need all of the capabilities of XCode? What if you just quickly need to create an informational app for a local college, which already has a lot of resources and animations in SWF format?
Hopefully a lot of people will continue to code in objective C. But that doesn't mean that everyone is pushing the metal. Sometimes you just need to get something boring and effective done.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like who?
I have a hard time imagining someone who has a workflow that includes large amounts of important content that pushes it out in Flash, and can't invest in taking that same content and migrating it to HTML5/CSS3.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Simple.
Those people pick up a book on HTML5/CSS3.
What, Is It snydeq's Day Off? (Score:2)
...or does InfoWorld now employ an entire department to astroturf here?
The last straw... (Score:3, Informative)
Help & Preferences --> Classic Index --> Sections --> Apple (x)
Re:The last straw... (Score:4, Funny)
Help & Preferences --> Classic Index --> Sections --> Apple (x)
I can't decide between commenting on your preference for bananas or laughing at your disregard on news about gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The last straw... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ladies & gentlemen I'm proud to present to you the great whisper jeff, the man with a huge apple shaped hole in his heart!
Didn't Tony Stark have one of those?
Not about Perf, Stability or Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not about Perf, Stability or Security (Score:5, Interesting)
It's important to note that the loss of profit may not be from the App store, but from the fact that people will have little reason to buy an iPhone if every app is available on every platform; Apple makes the majority of it's profit off hardware not software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not about Perf, Stability or Security (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not about Perf, Stability or Security (Score:4, Interesting)
Sort of like how they've gotten out of the desktop PC business, considering that specs are increasing, prices are dropping and there's a saturation point for those devices.
Except that they aren't a software company, they are a hardware company, as the licensing for OS X shows. There's no reason to believe that this will change in the iPad/iPhone space. These devices are in the infant stage now in their historical lifecyles, as are the wireless networks that support them.
The smartphone market is just beginning and assuming that it's all about faster CPUs and more megapixels in the cameras ignores what they may become in the future from an additional hardware perspective (picoprojection?) and availability of faster networks (4G and beyond). Apple has probably a decade or two left, easy, in the hardware department and plenty of ways to enhance the hardware to keep people coming back.
Plus, my guess is that Apple iPhone users aren't the kind of people shopping on CPU clock/pixels-per-inch/megapixels, so the fact that some HTC phone may have a better camera or faster CPU doesn't matter to them. And a phone, if you use it every day and carry it eveywhere, is kind of a wear item that people need replacing due to broken bits, scratches or other issues associated with carrying something around all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Apple makes the majority of profit on the hardware the software is still part of the business plan. It might not be very profitable today but several years from now it could be and they want as little threats to it as possible as it grows, and flash is a major threat.
It's about both. Apple wants to protect its profits, and having a closed HW/SW ecosystem supports that. I'd be great if SW becomes more profitable, but as long as it creates vendor locking its done its job. If it were easy to migrate from an iPhone to another phone then Apple would not be as easily able to keep its customer base (or get folks to want an iPhone vs a competing phone with the same SW availability); making the iPhone less valuable to carriers and putting downward price pressure; something A
Re:Not about Perf, Stability or Security (Score:5, Funny)
It's about Profit going down the drain if Flash apps make it to the iPhone!
No kidding! Apple makes a killing off the HTML5 platform they're advocating.
Best Solution (Score:4, Funny)
Ban both of them?
(Apple fans will mod me troll - but fortunately, there are no Flash fans!)
Re: (Score:2)
but fortunately, there are no Flash fans!
You bet! [firstshowing.net]
Re: (Score:2)
there are no Flash fans!
Sure there are. Despite their questionable taste in website aesthetics, they're both pretty nice people.
Oh, you mean Adobe Flash, not camera flash (Score:5, Funny)
Here I was thinking they were talking about the lack of a camera flash on the iPhone... I guess Adobe Flash is important too. Whatever makes you happy!
Re: (Score:2)
Missing options on the poll... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the option for "I support Apple not because I agree with their acceptance policies but because I honestly don't want Adobe's crapware anywhere near my phone!"
After all, unlike my desktop where I can easily -remove- Flash or block it with browser plugins, if Flash is on my phone then they better make sure I can remove it!
Re: (Score:2)
Very true! I purposely go to lengths to avoid flash when I can, and can honestly say I haven't had a browser crash in so long I can't remember.
of course I don't watch much online video, so ....
Again with this? Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this was only about technological/security hurdles it'd be done and done already. Apple and Adobe have the resources to get this working in short order. The issue is money. No amount of standards and compatibility will get past that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Again with this? Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but you left out the other side.
Adobe wants to keep making money selling Flash Tools. They do not want people to move off of Flash because they have control over Flash so they will always have the best tools for Flash development.
Adobe will also keep updating the Flash player so you will need to spend big bucks to buy the latest development tools for Flash.
Also Adobe can just kill support for any platform that it wishes at anytime. Even without killing they can lag bringing out an update to the Flash player for that platform like they have done to Linux and the Mac in the past. Not to mention the lack of a Linux Shockwave player.
Also Adobe has failed to provide a good workable Mobile Flash solution. Flash-Lite sucks and Flash 10.1 for mobile is still not shipping "Beta==not shipping".
So yes it really is all about money and control. The thing is it is about money and control ON BOTH SIDES!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't see Firewire taking off...
Are you kidding? Not only has it taken off, it's actually completed its departure. :)
Waste of time (Score:5, Interesting)
The decision is Apple's and Apple's alone. Apple has all the cards and has no need to cut any deals. InfoWorld's suggestions fail to take that into account.
Re:Waste of time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure you meant to say:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's one slight flaw with this plan. (Score:5, Funny)
it's complete bollocks.
Steve HATES Adobe.
You're more likely to get Steve Jobs to prove at the next Apple Keynote that he really can shit rainbows. "One more thing....."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about not allowing unapproved apps to play on the iProduct. Everything else is mostly an excuse to hide the blatant fact. If it was truly about stability and performance, then iTunes among others wouldn't suck so bad.
Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple wants total control over the tools used to create applications on their devices. They can't do that with Adobe Flash. Peace is not possible.
Having flash in the locked down iPhone/iPad environment would be akin to having a dynamic programming environment on the iPhone/iPad. It would open up so many vectors for screwing with the security on the devices. I imagine it would be a great vector for hacks as well, especially given how homogenous the iPhone/iPad environment is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Competitors advancing STANDARDS (Score:3, Insightful)
Real plan to fix the Flash on iPhone dev concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Forget about it, it's their device and they'll do what they want with it, no matter if you like it or not.
2) Learn another language. WTH is wrong with developers these days? It's not that hard to learn another language! Makes me ponder if most the flash developers are actually programmers or just script kiddies.
3) Web authors: start using HTML5 video standards and quit the stupid flash video player already!!!
Finally: I actually hopes flash dies, I hate the tech on my browsers and hate feeling forced to install it on every computer I have. Flash should die and Adobe should turn all their Flash authoring tools into HTML5 authoring tools instead. Heck, that would get them into the iphone too!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
4) Salesmen: really stop selling flash. Be a sport, and sell something more modern.
Flash is usually there because of the salesmen, not because of the web authors.
Re: (Score:2)
3) Web authors: start using HTML5 video standards and quit the stupid flash video player already!!!
You need to pay more attention, there is not standard video codec for the tags. As far as AJAX + SVG thats doable.
Re: (Score:2)
2)
First, Flash is not just "another language". It's a completely different platform, with different concepts and APIs.
Second, it's not about being "difficult" to learn it. It's about being able to develop a single cross-platform application. By taking care of the device-specific quirks and APIs, Flash provides developers a common ground.
The alternative is doing a Objective-C port for the iPhone/iPad and a Java port for Android.
Screw Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Really.
If they want to control what users do in their walled garden, let them.
Flash sucks... hell acrobat reader sucks too.
I don't care for either Apple or Adobe personally.
But neither should control what I have on my phone.
One good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
This has to be more than just allowing flash movies to play. Adobe would have to allow people to write applications that supports all that is flash. This would clearly get rid of the major worry about Flash, that it is controlled by a single firm that could wipe our it's competitors simply by no longer supporting Flash on their products. Of couse, as Adobe is finding out, it works both ways. Apple is doing it's best to destroy Flash by not supporting it on the mobile products.
Why will Adobe not allow flash players? Well, because then we might get functionality that would be a detriment to major players like google. Users might have in browser control of browser cookies. Users might get the control the do with images, like automatically blocking any flash object below a certain size. Or, heaven forbid, user might get an off switch.
Lock-in (Score:2, Insightful)
Slave to 3rd party (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised that InfoWorld completely overlooked this very real and very significant concern. Ah, who'm I kidding?... I'm not surprised at all... sigh...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple would in no way be a slave to a third party. If Adobe lags on implementing new features, it is the developers who are out of luck. They would always have the option to rewrite their app in Objective C -- exactly as they do today.
There are several good reasons not to allow Flash, but this is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop spreading FUD (Score:2)
"performance, stability, and security" is a factor no matter what. You can't be against Flash for those reasons but be supportive of HTML5. HTML5 has the very same "performance, stability, and security" issues as flash. HTML5 can kill a battery, kill stability and is only as secure as the person who is using it. (IE, easily socially engineered to be stupid in most cases)
Re: (Score:2)
You can debate stability and security, but Flash is a performance hog, HTML5 isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Video on the iphone already plays with hardware acceleration. YouTube. UStream, Vimeo. Apple designed it this way in the very first iphone back in 2007.
You don't need Flash 10.1 for this. In fact it only underscores my point (in other posts) that depending on an interim format to implement and support new features gets in the way.
How about apple just make their own implementation (Score:2)
How about Apple just make their own implementation of flash? I mean flash is a public and published standard and anyone are allowed to create an implementation.
So if Apple don't like the current Adobe implementation(And I can understand that) they can just make their own.
Re:How about apple just make their own implementat (Score:2)
Why bother? 80% of flash is simply video, and the iPhone supports sites like YouTube already without supporting Flash. The 20% that's simple animation can be done just as easily in HTML5/CSS3.
I keep missing what great Flash applications people need ported to their iPhones.
Doesn't just affect Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's new terms forbid applications written in any language that is not called C, C++ or Objective-C. For example, I work on the Free Pascal Compiler [freepascal.org] and added iPhone support a couple of years ago (it compiles straight to ARM assembler, no intermediate code or frameworks are involved). Most people that use it write their GUI in Objective-C and reuse Delphi or other existing Pascal code for their backend, just like other people would reuse C or C++ code.
But simply because FPC stands for Free Pascal Compiler rather than for Fast Progressive C, this way of working is no longer allowed. That just does not make any sense to me. Why on earth would the name of the programming language matter in any way? I could understand it if they would limit you to using their tool chain (although I'd still disagree with it), but limiting to a particular set of programming languages?
The fact that I can't even discuss this on the iPhone developer forums without first signing the new developer agreement (and thereby make it illegal for me to continue working on that project) only adds insult to the injury.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The developer agreement does not make it illegal for someone to work on other projects. It doesn't even make it illegal for you to install Pascal apps on your iPhone. It does mean that Apple won't approve Pascal apps on the iPhone, and you won't get them into the app store. But you are being a bit hysterical to think that joining the developer program in any way affects what else you do.
The new agreement [daringfireball.net] forbids using the SDK to compile programs that are not originally written in any of the approved languages:
3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
(emphasis mine). Of course, Apple cannot check what I do if I don't submit any apps to the AppStore, but I would definitely be in violation with the new SDK agreement if I first agreed to the new terms and then continued compiling and running Pascal programs on my iPod.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you for clearly explaining why this whole Apple's mess is such a bad idea, regardless of how evil Flash is.
Honestly, for a geek forum hell-bent on openness and other such stuff, it's as if the magic keyword "Apple" flips some switch inside the heads of those people. It's like "think of the children" for techies...
Who fscking cares about Flash in particular? At stake here is the freedom of development with the tools of your own choice. And mark my words - if this flies for Apple on iPod/iPad (and so fa
Re:Doesn't just affect Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're generating arm assembly, can't you just dump that to C file and wrap it using the GCC inline keyword?
Unfortunately, the SDK agreement explicitly says that the code must be originally written in one of the approved languages (C, C++, Objective-C). And yes, technically this means that any use of inline assembler is forbidden (e.g. to optimize part of a 3D engine, even the rest is completely written in C), which does not make any sense whatsoever either.
Gordon (Score:5, Informative)
It claims to support SWF1 and a lot of SWF2. Right now I believe we're on SWF9, so there's a long way to go, but it does show that the approach works.
A better plan: (Score:2)
1. Apple allows Flash on the iPhone / iPad, with one caveat - there's a huge fucking OFF switch in the settings. When this is turned off, no Flash code can execute.
2. If Adobe doesn't like that, too God damn bad. Get screwed with your pants on.
This way, the *user* gets to decide if Flash has all the problems that Apple claims it does, and if those problems aren't outweiged by the added functionality. If the problems are that bad, then very few people will use it, and Adobe looks like the goat for churn
other idea (Score:2)
Here's another idea:
1) some bunch of technically skilled people with a lot of spare time put together a proposal for a linux based tablet system
2) those people ask for funding (for example on http://www.kickstarter.com/ [kickstarter.com]
3) slashdot crowd starts donating money
4) people start developing the device
5) profit!
If Flash is so good, why won't it run on my box? (Score:2)
For a number of reasons, I'm running Red Hat Enterprise 4 on my desktop. Yes, it's not Windows or Mac, so that makes me an outlier. On the other hand, Adobe advertises that Flash is available for "Linux". If I want Flash, I have to dump RHEL 4 and load RHEL 5. One of the reasons I use the Enterprise editions is to *not* have to update my primary system every six months or so -- indeed, I'm waiting for RHEL 6 before I go through the process.
And I do have a RHEL 5 system I use on occasion...and Flash wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
'Every six months'? RHEL 5 is three years old. It (and it's derivatives like CetOS 5) has reached the point where we can't even compile our latest code on it without replacing every library we use on the system. And you're running the version before that. Are you really surprised that Adobe isn't supporting your platform?
Meanw
People don't understand the root problem (Score:2)
People really don't understand what this is about.
Sure the crashing is an issue and flash does suck and sure the gesture support thing is a bit of a problem.
But this isn't really about flash. Apple wants applications to be developed for the iPhone, not for the lowest common denominator. If flash (or any technology) is available on all phones then everyone and their brother will release apps using that technology and the phone becomes a commodity. New applications don't use the cool new hardware feature t
Flash from a developer's perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
I've programmed in a lot of languages. I just learned Flash a few weeks ago because I needed to port an iPhone game to Flash. From a developer's perspective, programming in Flash is like programming with half a language that only has half a run-time library. That wouldn't be so bad if it was fun to program in like some of the more modern scripting languages, but it's not.
Regarding performance, I found that the only way to make Flash code perform well is to write spaghetti code. I had a collision detection routine running really slowly, and when I hacked together a profiler for it (which is not easy because the language has no high-precision timers), I discovered that the function call overhead in Flash is obscenely high. I had to get rid of all getter methods (i.e. make all my read-only member variables public), replace convenience functions like Math.abs() and Math.max() with if-then-else statements, and take my hit test function and copy+paste its contents everywhere I wanted to call it. (I didn't see any macro or inline features, and as much as I hate to copy+paste, the hit really was that bad.)
IMO, if Adobe can't fix the language, they should put a bullet in it. If they won't do either (and they've had years), then I have no problem with other companies attempting to put a bullet in it.
Security and Performance (Score:2)
Google and Mozilla have been working with Adobe on a new plugin API to put Flash in a sandbox. The plugin API also auto-updates to the latest version of Flash at all times, to make sure people aren't running around with old versions that have known exploits.
Apple's hardware is getting faster with newer iterations. Assuming Adobe was willing to meet in the middle and work on performance and stability, I don't think this is an overtly complex issue.
This "war" has almost nothing to do with tech (Score:2)
It wasn't too long ago that Adobe used to love the Mac platform, they would release most of their tools on the mac either at the same time as the windows release or often before it. However, a couple of years back things s
Re: (Score:2)
Not the REAL issue (Score:2)
There are two competing standards for eBooks -- one owned by Adobe and the other while not owned by Apple it is at least in a version that is the more fully developed. While Steve may not feel the need to own the eBook standard, he sure as hell doesn't want Adobe to own it, either. Flash is but collateral damage in this war. The next killer app - which Steve desperately needs to justi
race condition (Score:5, Funny)
while (Flash.Sucks)
{
Developer.Bitch();
Developer.Moan();
Developer.Complain();
}
While in another thread, I have:
while (Apple.IsBastards)
{
Developer.Bitch();
Developer.Moan();
Developer.Complain();
}
These threads are deadlocked in a race condition, and meanwhile, most Users have absolutely no idea what's going on. Surprisingly few of them even seem to care.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You didn't write it in Objective-C, so I couldn't compile it... ;-)
Where can you vote? (Score:2)
The article above says you can vote. I can't find the voting link anywhere in the article.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's $99 a year. Also you are required to buy Mac OSX which seriously brings up the price.
If I want to develop for Linux, I can write the full code in Windows and compile it too. If I want to develop for Windows, I can write the full code in Linux and compile it too. What about Mac OSX?
Re:Apple Plan (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the poor performance and portability between browsers at the moment makes Flash look really, really good.
I'm looking forward to HTML5 but we're not there yet... and people are buying iPads and co right now, i.e. in the present.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apple Plan (Score:5, Interesting)
No it's not. I have the full X-Code package for developing on desktop OSX and iPhone, I downloaded it from the developer's area of Apple's website after registering for free. You only pay if you wish to release software via the App Store for the iPhone/iPad. $99 seems very reasonable to me as a fee for use of the libraries and access to the App store. Many development environments (e.g. Flash) require you to pay up-front whether you release or not.
Surprisingly, you are required to run OSX to run Apple's development environment, just like you are required to run Windows to run Microsoft's development environments. Code can be written for OSX using freely available tools and libraries on the OS of your choice, which will run from the command line or graphically via one of the cross-platform UI libraries. If you want to link against Apple's libraries you will need to use their OS, which I think is true of the Windows APIs too.
Re:Apple Plan (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
general-purpose computers like PCs, Macs and the iPad.
There's your problem. The iPad is not a general-purpose computer. It's an appliance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read carefully: the iPad/iPhone is NOT A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER. Why is this so hard to grasp for the vocal minority of Apple-complainers on Slashdot?
Re:Apple Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it is the geek version of an 'inconvenient truth". Folks on here love to bash the iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch, comparing it's 'closed' system to a general PC, which is wide open. The argument makes no sense when it is taken for what it is: An appliance.
Apple and Flash Haters in general have very real arguments against the use of flash (for the record, as to performance, if Flash improved in that arena, I wouldn't see an issue from that side of the argument. I could simply make the choice to use or not to use). It is proprietary, it encompasses an framework within itself, and it is out of Apple's control. If Apple were to allow Flash 'apps' on the iPhone, and Flash introduced a security vulnerability across such a large scope of applications (and you know there would eventually be thousands of such apps), Apple would be totally at the mercy of Adobe, who has a terrible track record when it comes to security. In such an instance, it would be Apple who suffered the scorn, not Adobe. Why would any sane person want to put themselves into that situation, when they obviously do not need to? The lack of Flash has arguably not hurt iPhone sales in any significant way.
I also found this statement from TFA a bit ridiculous: "At InfoWorld.com, we believe such lockouts of technology, however well rationalized, could eventually lead to an Internet future of multiple, incompatible platforms that demand multiple proprietary technologies."
The simple fact is, that if a technology is good, and absolutely needed, it will be placed where demanded, or the vendor refusing to will simply shrivel and die. The market ultimately makes this decision for a vendor. Standards group typically end up incorporating technologies when evolving needs require them, although they may take their time, they do eventually get there. These standards don't happen in a vacuum. Prior to HTML5 and no viable alternative to PROPRIETARY Flash, there simply wasn't much of a choice. The market demanded the features that Flash delivered. Even though it is a proprietary technology (like the one the above quote is slamming), it became hugely popular. This in itself I believe was it's biggest downfall. It had no competition within the market, and Adobe became lax with it. They had the 90+ percentile numbers of multitudes of Windows users who were lapping it with nary a choice to the contrary. 64 bit OS's have been around for years, yet we are only now seeing betas of a 64 bit plugin? Smart phones have been around for years, yet we still have no production version of the client. The geek herds should be all up in arms that Flash is so 'last century', yet they are clamoring to get it installed (well at least some are) onto their Droid's, only to complain that it crashes, kills battery life, and generally sucks. Why so surprised?
I'm actually rather shocked that Flash's downfall is so tantalizing close considering it was an almost impossible 'ball' to fumble given the unbelievable good fortune Adobe has had and squandered.
The InfoWorld article misses the point. It is for me the consumer to decide, and I believe the Apple crowd has overwhelmingly already done so, and new the new directions like HTML5's capabilities are a reflection of that (note I'm not saying Apple is responsible for HTML5 or anything of the sort, but their refusal to 'sign on' to Flash due to it's very obvious shortcomings are being answered by new standards to address those concerns).
Re:Apple Plan (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for clarifying. I was mistakenly thinking it was a general purpose computer because of the availability of 200,000 general purpose applications for it. After reading your post I realized that it's just a phone, nothing else, nothing more. It's just like my old Panasonic cordless phone on my desk. My bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"*Grrr*- look, there's thousands of games available for the Xbox, does that make it a general-purpose computer too?"
Are we talking about the original XBox? FUCK YES IT'S A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER, given it had a goddamned x86 core and ran a modified version of Windows, or even Linux if you felt like doing some hacking. Shit you modify the firmware and you could use the original XBox for TONs of applications.
The new 360? Not so much. The PS3? Most certainly (if it's the old fat version.)
Go do some actual pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read carefully: the iPad/iPhone is NOT A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER.
The only reason why it isn't is because it's artificially restricted from running arbitrary code installable by its user. So using that as a supporting argument for the restriction introduces a circular dependency.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see why you couldn't develop an application using the XNA Framework under Mono. You can even test it on your Linux machine with Mono XNA [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have to buy a Microsoft Developer licnese to wirte code for Windows Machines?
Nope
You pay for the license to use their tools.
DO you have to pay Microsoft to release software for Windows?
Nope
Do you have to submit your program for approval before you can sell your program?
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "flash lookalike", the only thing they have are javascript frameworks and we already knew about those.
Re: (Score:2)
Feet crossed, head turned sideways, one hand on the hip and the other wrist bent?
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth would Microsoft care what hardware people are using to run their operating system on? It's not like they have their own competing hardware platform or something.
In fact, I think Microsoft like people running Windows on a Mac a lot. Better than people not running Windows at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)